Family
Security Credit Union ("FSCU") appeals the trial
court's denial of its motions to compel arbitration in
eight separate but closely related cases. We reverse and
remand.

I.
Facts and Procedural History

Action
Auto Sales ("Action Auto") is a car-financing group
that financed the vehicle inventory of Pine City Auto
("Pine City"), a used-car dealership. Action Auto
held the titles to the vehicles in the inventory it financed
and released a title only when a vehicle was sold and Pine
City paid off a proportional amount of the inventory
financing. Pine City eventually went out of business without
paying off the inventory financing on some of the vehicles it
had sold. Action Auto sued Pine City and the purchasers of
eight vehicles who had purchased vehicles from Pine City and
financed those purchases through FSCU.[1] Action Auto
sought possession of the vehicles and money damages. The
purchasers each filed counterclaims and cross-claims against
Action Auto and Pine City and third-party claims against
FSCU, alleging negligence, wantonness, and conspiracy. The
purchasers' third-party claims against FSCU are based on
FSCU's alleged failure to perfect its security interest
in the vehicles before financing the purchasers of the
vehicles. FSCU moved for each of those third-party claims to
be submitted to arbitration, and, to support its motions,
FSCU attached a copy of a "Retail Installment Sale
Contract" and a "Dealer's Assignment and
Buyer's Consent to Assignment" that each purchaser
had executed when he or she purchased the vehicle. The
purchasers opposed the motions to compel arbitration, but
they did not submit any evidence. After hearing oral
arguments, the trial court denied all eight motions to compel
arbitration. FSCU filed these eight appeals, which this Court
consolidated for the purpose of issuing one opinion.

As part
of the purchase of the vehicle, each purchaser executed a
"Retail Installment Sale Contract" with Pine City
and a "Dealer's Assignment and Buyer's Consent
to Assignment, " which assigned the sale contract to
FSCU. The "Dealer's Assignment and Buyer's
Consent to Assignment" contained the following
arbitration provision immediately above the signature lines:

"Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to
this Agreement shall be settled by binding arbitration.
Dealer and Buyer further agree that any such arbitration
shall take place in Morgan County, Alabama. Judgment upon any
award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered by any court
having jurisdiction thereof. The arbitrator shall determine
the prevailing party, and the costs and expenses of the
arbitration proceeding, including the arbitrator's fees,
shall be borne by the non-prevailing party, unless otherwise
required by law. No provision of this Agreement, nor the
exercise of any right under this Agreement, shall limit the
right of the Credit Union to (1) obtain provisional or
ancillary remedies, such as injunctive relief, writ of
attachment, or protective order from a court having
jurisdiction before, during, or after the pendency of any
arbitration; (2) exercise self-help remedies, such as
set-off; (3) foreclose against or sell any real or personal
property collateral by the exercise of a power of sale under
a mortgage or other security agreement or instrument, a deed
of trust, or applicable law; (4) exercise any other rights
under this Agreement upon the breach of any term or condition
herein; or, (5) ... proceed with collection of the account
through all other legal methods, including, but not limited
to, proceeding in court to obtain judgment. Any and all
arbitration under this contract will take place on an
individual basis; class arbitrations and class actions are
not permitted. DEALER AND BUYER FURTHER AGREE THAT YOU ARE
WAIVING THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY AND TO PARTICIPATE IN A
CLASS ACTION."

(Capitalization in original.)

In
denying FSCU's motions to compel arbitration, the trial
court held that "FSCU's promise to arbitrate is
merely illusory and does not serve as valid consideration to
support the arbitration agreement" because "the
arbitration clause does not preclude FSCU from pursuing
several alternative avenues of relief against the borrower,
including the filing of a judicial lawsuit, " but
"requires that borrowers ... settle '[a]ny
controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this
Agreement' through binding arbitration."

Further,
the trial court held that the arbitration provision was
unconscionable. Specifically, the court stated:

"In the present case, the terms of the arbitration
clause contained in the Assignment are grossly favorable to
FSCU. Although consumer debtors such as [the purchasers] are
required to arbitrate all disputes they may have against
FSCU, FSCU has the option of pursuing several alternative
remedies to arbitration, including the filing of a judicial
lawsuit. The huge disparity in the rights of the contracting
parties is one-sided and unreasonably favors FSCU.

"In addition, FSCU, a large and sophisticated business
entity, has overwhelming bargaining power. To obtain the
financing needed to purchase a used car from Pine City, [the
purchaser] had no choice but to execute FSCU's
boilerplate Assignment containing the arbitration clause,
along with FSCU's form applications for membership to the
credit union and for credit financing.

"Under the circumstances, the used car sales transaction
evinces the necessary elements to support a finding of
unconscionability. Hence, the arbitration requirement
contained in the Assignment should be declared invalid and
unenforceable, and FSCU's motion to compel arbitration
should be denied."

(Citations omitted.)

II.
Standard of Review

"'This Court reviews de novo the denial of a motion
to compel arbitration. Parkway Dodge, Inc. v.
Yarbrough, 779 So.2d 1205 (Ala. 2000). A motion to
compel arbitration is analogous to a motion for a summary
judgment. TranSouth Fin. Corp. v. Bell, 739 So.2d
1110, 1114 (Ala. 1999). The party seeking to compel
arbitration has the burden of proving the existence of a
contract calling for arbitration and proving that the
contract evidences a transaction affecting interstate
commerce. Id. "[A]fter a motion to compel
arbitration has been made and supported, the burden is on the
non-movant to present evidence that the supposed arbitration
agreement is not valid or does not apply to the dispute in
question." Jim Burke Automotive, Inc. v.
Beavers, 674 So.2d 1260, 1265 n.1 (Ala. 1995) (opinion
on application for rehearing).'"

It is
undisputed that FSCU moved to compel arbitration and
supported its motions with contracts that were executed by
the purchasers and that each contract contained the
above-quoted arbitration provision. It was also undisputed
that the contracts evidenced a transaction affecting
interstate commerce. Thus, the burden shifted to the
purchasers to present evidence that the arbitration
agreements were not valid or that they did not apply to the
disputes in question. The purchasers did not present any
additional evidence. They presented only argument. Therefore,
unless on its face the arbitration provision is not valid or
does not apply to the dispute in question, the trial
court's decision to deny the motions to compel
arbitration was erroneous.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A.
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.